Shipbucket

the stern is a bad thing because of space and freeboard. the deck is less then one deck above the waterline, which is not really that much. you are unable to ship towed arrays and all in there because all openings in that one deck need to be watertight (as it is below the waterline)
some ships have arnament there, like the tico or the virginia, but never as designed (well ok, the tico does, but the tico is an modification of another ship already, and thus has drawbacks like that designed in) I also wonder what happends to the harpoons if you fire the gun directly above it.

now I think of it, the CGN's and kidds as build had IIRC only the SPS-48, the SPS-49 was added with the NTU.

apart from the fact that I find it weird they are on the centerline (on the spruance they are as much on top of the gas turbines as possible, are those on the centerline on this ship? otherwise it is not very space efficient) I meant mainly that the intake housings on the old spruance drawings looked nothing like the real thing. in reality, they are lower, compacter and have different rosters on them.

what I mean with the hull number of an DDG is that if in your AU, 47 would be the correct cruiser hull number, that would mean there would have been 5 more cruisers build than in real life.

did you mean sea sprite instead of sea king?

to compare kidd, as what it can do, with this ship:
2* Mk 45 (or 1*Mk 45, 1*Mk 71) - 2* Mk 71
2*Mk 26, 44+64 missiles - 2*Mk 26, 44+64 missiles
8 harpoons - 16 harpoons
0 tomahawks - 16 tomahawks
2* SH-2 - 2* SH-2 (or SH-3?)

the big difference seems to be the tomahawks. before I call this an cruiser instead of an huge destroyer (DLG), I would at least need more command spaces (your superstructure and hull is currently too small for that, volume wise.), more communications, flagship facilities (additional boats, for example) with the redesignation of DLG's and the tico's to cruiser this was fixed, but before that an cruiser was an command ship which was near independend from anything on shore.

also, explain to me why this ship is more silent then an kidd? I cannot think of anything why an bigger ship would be harder to find, as it makes slightly more noise normally

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

As far as I know, the only missile ships to not carry both a major 2D and 3D air search set were the steam DD missile conversions and the various DEG/FFGs. I am certain the CGN's had SPS-40 as commissioned; I'm not as sure on Kidd.

Kidd's weird, though, being built not strictly to USN doctrine.

I initially made the stern this way so the ABL's wouldn't impead the MK-71s firing arc, but then I did kind of funk myself by putting the MK-141's there.....And I had no idea it would screw up towed array arangments, so I'll need a re-think there

Yes, as far as I know all the cruisers of this era came with SPS-40 as original equipment and were up-graded durning NTU. I Was looking at pictures of the Kidd this morning and she commisioned without 40 or 49
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0599344.jpg

.[/quote]





Yes, engines are also centerlined
In my AU those numbers were left open for the Virginia class
.
YES, I fixed that. sorry for not paying attention

I was thinging the same thing, and I was compairing the forward Virginia superstructer (which had the flag accomidations) with my forward superstructure. Mine looks to have more room although (obviously) the stacks and up takes are going to take up room...what would you suggest? I could put the siginal bridge back on above the navigation bridge and call it the flag bridge. Add some berthing right behind for the precious admiral...

it's that way cause I designed it that way dang it!!!

Just kidding, i forgot to asterix that and it's fixed now

thank for your help GUYS

jOE

many points of the above would be fixed by what I suggested earlier, increasing the hull with one deck.

and the last ship with centerline engines in the USN but two propellers was still steam powered, IIRC. could you give an sketch of the arrangement with the turbines and the shafts? I cannot think of any with 2 shafts, 2 engine rooms and 4 turbines that would really.... well.... work.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Uh, the Burkes obviously have centerline uptakes (I'm not sure if the engines are on the centerline with wide gearboxes, or if the gas turbines move athwartships once lowered).

Exactly what I was thinking Erik. What say you Ace?

I think the Burke has an staggered powerplant too. why? well, the uptakes are on the centerline, but this is dictated by the layout of the SPY-1. the intakes though, which are lower and thus not block the SPY-1, are asymmetrical.
SPY-1 in the setup as the burke it has per definition requires all large high structures, like uptakes, to be placed on the centerline. the littom DDM shows an similar arrangement (although that ship has only 3 turbines, they are still in 2 separate engine rooms with the shafts loose from each other)

that said, while it makes no sense to me to have an non-staggered arrangement for an ship like this (even if the burke has not, the burke is an somewhat cheaper design of later date, and might have very different design ideas compared to what we are looking at here) it at least makes sense to put the uptakes on the centerline. I would still play with the intakes, as I stay with it that it is best to put them directly on top of the engines (IIRC, I even know of cases where the replacement ducts use the intakes instead of the uptakes, and the burke migth be an very likely candidate for that) but I stand corrected on the uptakes.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

ok, I've been dredging my memory about flag space aboard Virginia. She had flag accommodations in CIC, as well as a flag cabin on the O2 level. Captains cabin was on the starboard side and Flag cabin was on the port. You guys kind of make it sound like you need this huge space in order to be a flag, or command ship. So I've done a comparison of Virginia's superstructure and my ship. I can not understand how you all feel I've designed no room for flag accomidations

well, quite simple, actually.
1. by comparing your drawings here. green blocks are spaces cut out, crosses for 'half cut outs' which don't take the entire beam of the structure.

this leaves you with roughly 55% of the space, doing the same.
2. you said your ship followed the csgn design line, right? this means you would require more flagship spaces then an ship originating from the DXGN line, or alternatively the DLG line.
3. not entirely comparable, but take a look at what the previous generation of CLG's had when they were appointed flagship:
http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?di ... 201967.png
http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?di ... 201970.png
5. you have 2 small boats (smaller then an spruance, IIRC) comparing with the virginia's 3-4 larger sloops.

those are my reasons.

btw, may I do an modification to your drawing with the larger depth I am proposing? it would solve most of the above and earlier problems.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

The Burke engines and not center lined. There is one one each side of each shaft feeding into the MRG. The intakes indeed do angle to provide the said centerline bliss caps.

I don't remember about the GTGs but I believe the fwd and aft GTGs are are centerline as the aft stack on the missile deck shows. I want to say the center GTG is also centerline.

I've been off mine for the better part of a year but as luck would have it I am visiting a buddy onboard tonight so maybe I'll head down and take a look.